/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Calories always did seem like a weird measurement.

>>16685816
>Calorie is objectively the wrong measure
According to who? You?
I'm not defending it, but I'm doubting you.

the land of milk and honey

>>16685828
Truth is possible without facts and references. I can defense the position if you have a critique. I explained it clear enough why this is NOT science.

>>16685816
Seethe

>>16685816
>fatty coping as usual and making up more excuses for why he can't losoe weight
kys and go back to /fit/fat

>>16685840
Seeth about what? Since deducing these simple truths I eat tons of healthy honey and cheese and I am in fantastic shape. No cooked sugars and less oil is all it takes.

>>16685845
This. Same people, who bitch about the bmi, because muh athletes are considered fat.

>>16685845
>>16685853
I dont get your points. I am not fat. I work out 5 to 6 days a week on a mostly grain diet, with spots of oil and meat.

>>16685816
t. Skipped highschool thermodynamics

>>16685866
Thermodynamics has no impact on the Krebs cycle. I think you skipped physiology.

>>16685816
Sounds like lardass cope to me.

>>16685828
We’re measuring energy in food by burning it. That’s hardly a relevant metric when you consider the bioavailability of food AND the effects of certain foods on the body’s metabolism and function.

The nutritional concept of calories is so outdated and grossly simplified.

>>16685835
And your explanation is dumb.
"Scientists" are still arguing if certain fats are good or bad, so you could say that "food science" is fucking stupid. It's really embarrassing.

>>16685883
You cannot gain weight from oats. You can stuff your face 24/7 and it has no impact on your weight.
The definitions get skewed by people in the corn syrup industry saying: "eat just a little of our product is okay because it is low calorie". This is where the problem enters, NO amount of their product is acceptable. Once you have that simple realization, you dont need to monitor your caloric intake from carbs anymore. No amount of oats can make a person fat. At that point you'll lose excessive weight eating whole grains and meat only, so you need to monitor weight using oils.
Or keep with your cooked sugars in moderation is okay and enjoy your at best skinny diabetes and kidney failure.

>>16685860
>I-I'm totally not fat guise!
Post wrist. The only times I have been successful at losing weight without any serious exercise were when I was actively counting my calories. No meme diet in the world will make you lose weight if you're not below your TDEE

>>16685923
If you make your carb intake come 100% from starchy veggies, then you would. Like I said I am sure you have no cut the simple sugars which is the key the entire argument. Calories was invented by big corn syrup to convince you the impact of their product is equivalent to a bowl of rice or oats or barley or teff. But in reality it is 100% more damaging since all the grains are healing. I lost 20 lbs and feel invigorated in the gym hitting my dips PR since eating as much oats and honey as I can every morning, which also helps quench any cravings for the addictive corn syrups. It is amazing how many products have it in them. Salad dressings, sauces, drinks, ham, etc.

>>16685939
Okay and how many calories are you consuming daily?

>>16685945
Like I said I dont count. I eat oats and honey every morning, potato or pasta every afternoon, and meat or cheese every evening. I eat as much as I can for every meal. The only thing I need to adjust if im losing weight is add more oil. If I somehow gain weight I'd cut the oil or cheese. Measuring the calories of a bowl of oats is nonsensical. Honey I could see, but for me honestly I havent noticed any weight change from increasing or decreasing intake, not like oil at least which has a stark impact.

>>16685957
>>16685816
Caloric density of some foods per gram of content varies widely. You can get fat on straight oils and direct refined sugar quickly because they are extremely calorie dense, meaning small amounts amount to more calories compared to other foods. In your case, oats have a lower value of caloric density compared to honey; they fill you up more and have a higher nutritional value in comparison. However, both are still largely carbohydrate-heavy food sources, so they're not at all ideal as sole staples for all humans (especially individuals requiring more proteins for muscle synthesis and maintenance).

Note, you also admit you adjust your food intake despite having no real idea of the true caloric values; just as most humans did prior to modern analysis of foods in the form of caloric and nutrient values. This doesn't mean calories are a joke, but rather that you adjust intake intuitively and make choices reflecting the results of body fluctuations. It's nothing new. Please keep such discussion to /fit/ in the future.

>>16686105
Caloric density is poor measure of what happens in the body. Preprocessed sugars dont go through the Krebs Cycle, and thus your body doesn't require using energy to burn them. Conversely, oats or raw honey do require the Krebs cycle to break down and thus result in a net lower carbohydrate intake than a simple sugar. This post is not about denying that you can measure oil versus oil by caloric ignition testing, sure that is true, but rather carb vs carb, it fails the test of time, because it doesnt account for the Krebs cycle. A simple sugar is not handled the same as a complex sugar. Simple as. Why would I post on fit? This is about food, not fitness. I am promoting oats. You should eat oats. Stop eating corn syrup. I am tired of corn syrup shills pretending 100 calories of corn syrup is acceptable intake AND 100 calories of corn syrup is the same as 100 calories of oats; BOTH ARE FALSE.

>>16685816
I don't even understand what you are trying to say. How else would the energy of food be measured?

>>16686133
You're using a lot of words to say "sugar is worse than oats" which literally anyone with half a brain understands already

>>16686257
We measure it by input, it should be measured by final output.

Eat 100 calories of oil, output to body/muscles/fat deposits is 100 calories.

Eat 100 calories of simple sugar, output to body/muscle/fat deposits is 100 calories, plus your body has no sensors to say "hey I have had enough" since the Krebs cycle is off, so you often don't stop there.

Eat 100 calories of oats, effective output to body/muscle/fat deposits is some amount less than 100. This is the key point. The Krebs cycle will consume for hypothetical purposes 30 calories of energy to transport and break down the complex sugars, thus the net is 70 calories, this is the more important number. Therefore, eat more, impacts less, fills the stomach more, and has the Krebs cycle as a feedback mechanism to tell the body "hey ive had enough".

Simple sugars are disease causing and addictive. Our society is being ravaged. We need to simplify our carb intake by going back to complex whole carbs. Eat rice. Eat sauce without sugar. Eat oats. Our bodies are made for that food. The claims coming in from nutritionists today are so caught up on caloric intake that they actually start saying total BS statements like "cut the oat intake", hah! I am here to say that is a poor understanding of human nutrition and what makes our bodies unhealthy, guess what, it isn't the oats.

>>16685816

>>16685816
>a measure of energy is wrong because uhh... I say so
>No I will not provide any alternative

>>16686303
It is correct for measuring energy, but again it does not translate to the caloric output to the body. The Krebs cycle requires large amounts of energy. My physiology needs brushed up to make specific claims but it can be quantified. Because simple sugars skip the Krebs cycle, not only is there no feedback mechanism but it also does not burn nearly as much energy to process by the body.

>>16686303
Also you dont need an alternative. It is an acceptable measure for protein and oils. But for carbs it fails to measure the physiological impact. In other words, go ahead and use caloric measures for oil and protein, but dont bother for whole grains, for those just eat as much as you can because your body has feedback mechanisms. No one has ever got fat from oats.

>>16685957
How much honey per day?

>>16686327
I consider raw honey a healthy source of complex carbohydrates. I eat as much as I can. Generally id say 4 oz is my bodies limit.

>>16686133
What's your stance on barley? I think I prefer it to oats.

>>16686336
Barley, oats, teff, rice, bread without sugar added, pasta, potato, etc. are all great choices of carbohydrates. I mix it up otherwise they can get boring, except oats and honey for me they never get old.

>>16685872
>Thermodynamics has no impact on the Krebs cycle. I think you skipped physiology.
I think you skipped biochemistry, specifically the parts about equilibrium and activation energy

>>16685816
Not gonna read all that euroseethe, but it really doesn't matter if you use calories or joules. The latter makes calculations easier, sure, but most people don't write up reaction schemata on a daily basis.

>>16686372
Im not european
>>16686364
>but thermodynamics
His original point was to say 1 word and offer no explanation and now youre tying in how thermodynamics can apply. Sure it has some application. But again my point is that the body has the Krebs cycle which changes how the body is impacted by the intaken calories; which modern nutritionists often dont account for leading them to the faulty conclusions of: hey cut the oats to lose weight.
No no no, increase the oats to lose weight. You'll feel full longer, you'll feel more energy, you'll feel less addicted to hunger, and you'll notice your body losing weight unless you add in the butter and oil.

>>16686384
>some application
Did you major in nutrition science or some garbage degree to make such retarded posts?

>>16686389
I dont need a title to speak truth.

>>16686391
>thermodynamics only applies to the body sometimes
That's the furthest thing from truth

>>16686332
See now I know you're just a retard. Honey isn't remotely a complex carbohydrate it's just glucose and fructose you whipped nigger

>>16686395
Youre missing my point, I am assuming intentionally, to press this 1 buzz word. I am not indicating whether or not thermodynamics applies to the body but rather that his claim that calories translates to thermodynamics within the body is nonsensical. The real application is how much effective output post-krebs cycle the body obtains from a food item, not the input. This is probably the 4th time in this thread I've explained myself for you the ultra-dense, I am assuming, simple sugar shill.
>but THERMODYNAMICS

>>16685828
1 calorie of protein is not the same as 1 calorie of sugar. at the very least it's a very reducitonist way of measuring things

>>16686408
That's the literal definition of a complex carbohydrate. A mix of sugars the body has to separate and break down the longer ones into the simplest form. If you cook sugar, it breaks it down for you so the body then doesn't need to.

>>16686422
To expand, this pre-broken down sugar is a bad thing. It ruins the bodys feedback mechanism

>>16686416
This is a good point. Protein i think also is broken down in some meaningful way that burns calories in the process, providing a feedback mechanism, as well. Unlike simple sugars. Notably the protein break down vs the Krebs break down cycles probably use different energy, my guess would be protein uses more.

>>16686441
protein has to either be broken down into sugar or amino acids. amino acids are more difficult for your body to process. I wonder if they could use a chemical reaction on food to estimate the process before they go ahead with burning it to see how much energy is available.

>>16686133
>Preprocessed sugars dont go through the Krebs Cycle, and thus your body doesn't require using energy to burn them.
Man, there's a ton of misunderstandings to unpack here, but everything ends up going into the citric acid cycle. There's nothing special about honey either, it's fructose and glucose just like corn syrup.

>>16685872
>Thermodynamics has no impact on the Krebs cycle
t. Brainlet

>>16686540
Meaning saying a single word doesn't somehow magically disprove the points i am making. Youre the brainlet.
>>16686531
Raw honey provides many benefits. It has probiotics, healing properties, complex carbs.
And no, not everything goes into the cycle. Simple sugars bypass all cycles, which has been my point all along. Bypassing the bodys Krebs cycle is not natural and shouldn't even be considered food. Our society is being ravaged by simple sugars and it is causing extreme unhealth and is the most medically expensive resulting thing on the planet.

>>16686563
Where do you think the sugar goes then? What exactly do you think the Krebs cycle does? You're not necessarily wrong about your other opinions, but you've got some massive misapprehensions about cell metabolism.

First you have to understand calories, and how they were measured:

>food item x is burnt and its energy content measured
>food item x is fed to a fasted person and his poop is burnt after you smell it a bit
>you calculate the difference and now you have the difference (obvious)
>but you ignored the availability you faggot
>so you grade the food by type as well
>sugars and shit are used almost 100% but protein and stuff maybe 70% because you need to spend energy to digest
>of course protein is better for you than sugar you stupid shit
>so you grow a brain and eat low carb

>>16686563
>complex carbs
Honey is made up mostly of simple sugars.

>>16685816
Works on my machine

>>16685816
>Calorie is objectively the wrong measure
>>16685835
>Truth is possible without facts and references.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word "objectively" sometime, kiddo. You're using it wrong. If something is objectively true or false, then the theoretical constructs can be quantified, measured and rationally show how and why it's the case.

0/10 effort. Stay in school.

>>16685816
>has no objective conclusible takeaways that lead to it being correlated or causal towards the mechanisms in the body that break down that food.
Are you retarded?
Nobody ever said it did.
It’s the amount of energy stored in food when released in a certain manner. That’s what it is. Whether or not you “like” that unit has zero to do with its usefulness.
>Meanwhile oats have a net positive impact on your health AND weight, same for honey
If you sit on your ass and eat 7000cal daily of oats/honey, I guarantee you will be a fatass.

Either this is elaborate bait or OP is as mentally ill as vegans who starve themselves

>>16687741
Its not bait OP is just a midwit like the rest of us. If you want the argument OP was trying to make read below.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6082688/

Tell us about how vegetables are bad for you too.

All I want to know is why? Why can't I be like OP? Why can't I draw conclusions out of thin air without ever feeling the slightest constraint of objectivity and being right instantly, due to the simple fact that it's MY opinion? Why can't I wake up, think something - anything - and just simply be correct? I can't imagine how nice that must be. And shame on you, OP. You could fix every problem that humanity is facing in a single day and yet here we are. Do you think you could take five minutes to let your galaxy brain think up the answers that have evaded millions who have dedicated their lives to seek out a glimmer of truth in this world?
You're a fucking idiot.

>>16690171
Why are you this invested in the calorie concept? Whose payroll are you on?

>>16685816
i'm somewhat mystified by this world you live in where the obese not only eat oats & honey regularly for breakfast but also believe the oats & honey are unhealthy

>>16690193
Yeah it's me, Big Calorie. Everything was going fine, everyone was eating food and actually being duped into thinking they needed to eat food in order to maintain a body and WHAM, you came in and wrecked everything.

>>16690193
measure food however you like, in the end you gain weight if you keep eating more than you need and lose weight if you keep eating less than you need

>>16685816
> TLDR EAT MORE GRAINS AND HONEY
Weird conclusion. Calories is a shitty measure but it's a rough figure like all nutritional science.
Complex carbs like bread/pasta/rice require a lot of energy from your body to break them down, that's why you get food comas after a big meal, proteins require a bit too, but not as much.
Simple carbs like sugar/honey don't use any energy to process, they're ready to go. Same with fats and alcohol, if your body doesn't use the energy in a short time it will convert and store it in bodyfat.
Things like vitamins /minerals too are just rough indicators, actual intake depends a lot on bioavailability and what you're eating it with. For example drinking some vitamin C with your steak means your body will absorb significantly more iron. There's hundreds of these interactions.

>>16685909
>You cannot gain weight from oats.
???????
Was this written by a fucking horse? Yes, you can. If you consume more calories in oats then you expend, you will gain weight. What the fuck are you talking about?

>>16690700
It's good to see calories as the maximum of an interval. The actual amount absorbed will vary and pretty much always be less that the calorie measurement, but it sure won't be higher. It's not like we cook in medical lab conditions anyway.

>>16686422
that's not the definition of complex carbohydrates combining to simple carbs doesn't make it complex. Complex carbohydrates are complex chains of carbs that break down to Glucose when digested you mongoloid. Peas, whole grain and beans are complex carbohydrates. How the fuck do you function in real life you fat fuck?

>>16685816
>Fat people often say: "I shall skip breakfast of oats and honey because I am watching my weight."
Not one person in the history of spoken language has uttered this.

>>16686332
You're gonna get the beetus, son.

Do Americans really use 'carbs' as a word? Like in spoken language? It just reeks of pseudo-sciency hogwash lmao.

>>16691486
yes, and it's obnoxious as fuck. I make a point to start talking about lipids as well and whip out the whole pseud vocab in the presence of such irritating individuals.

>>16685816
Big honey

>>16685939
Oh ok, it's bait. Ya got me.

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab270/6369073

A calorie is not a calorie?

>>16685896
Are you referring to a numbered unit resulting from a data-preset by each organ's potential breaks down all food?

>>16685816
Calories are fake and gay. You don’t fucking burn food in a little furnace in your tummy.

That's cool and all but I lost 30kg by counting calories and restricting them so clearly there is a causal relationship between caloric intake and weight loss/gain.

>>16685835
>Truth is possible without facts and references.
so this is what is means to be a retard

Kj a shit. Every other metric measurement is good except Kj no one wants to use that shit even in metric countries. Calories is efficient.

>>16686326
You could 100% get fat on oats.
t. Oat-eating fat fuck

>>16685835
>Truth is possible without facts and references
without facts or references means you need to take your meds

Jesus Christ this board has gone to pure shit. I understand /pol/ards but I can't comprehend if the rest of you is just baiting or legitimately dumb.

>>16693742
all that and a bag of chips son

>>16685816
>Fat people often say, I shall skip breakfast of oats and honey because I am watching my weight
>I couldn't eat enough oats and honey to gain, nay the gain must be from oil, generally, rather than carbs.

>>16685816
>a measure of increased temperature through igniting food
That is just wrong. Food has calories because it stores energy. You can use calories in other contexts because it's a unit of fucking energy. A lightbulb "burns" calories.

>>16691486
>Americans!
>Americans!
kys

>>16693535
Oxygen goes in, carbon dioxide comes out. You basically do dude, the source of energy is exactly the same.

>>16694131
That’s retarded. You’re a science denier.

>>16686395
thermodynamics has nothing to do with digestion

You lost me at the “you can’t gain weight eating only oats and honey”

>>16693551
Simplistic and child-like understanding of something much more complex. If you were a celiac for example, you could come to the same conclusion that restricting calories lessens your symptoms, simply because you're more likely to be eating less or no gluten.

Calories are a very rough measurement considering the vast amounts of different substances that fall under the umbrella of a calorie. It is not as simple as calories in / calories out

>>16694482
It sounds weird, but it's all redox reactions, it just happens very quickly in a fire.

>>16694572
>It is not as simple as calories in / calories out
It really is though. Does having a more intricate and nuanced understanding of human biology and nutritional science help? Of course.
Does that mean CICO doesn't work? No.
Your body can NEVER EVER gain 3000kcal of energy from 2000kcal of food. Differences in how your body metabolises different foods can only ever cause you to overestimate your calories from food.

>>16685816
this is a cope, post body

>>16694671
>It really is though
It's not. Different substances have different effects and processes on the human body, this isn't debatable.

>Does that mean CICO doesn't work? No.
So if your argument is about weight loss, yes, it's obvious that an insufficient amount of food results in your body shedding fat and muscle stores for energy. Again, you're using a gross simplification and "just eat less" is an incredibly broad stroke for all of the processes in the human body relating to food. Calories in > calories out is an incorrect conclusion to a multi-faceted process, it is not that simple.

>>16694572
>It is not as simple as calories in / calories out
How much you eat (calories in) determines how much mass you have. The proportion of what you eat (proteins, fats, carbs, fiber) determine what shape that mass takes. Forcing your body to repair muscles through exercise encourages the latter.

That's as much "more" as there is to it.

>>16694711
>Different substances have different effects and processes on the human body, this isn't debatable.
It's not debatable - it's irrelevant. If you want to lose weight, reduce your calories. If you want to gain weight, increase your calories.
If you want to talk about anything else, increasing lean mass, improving blood lipids, reducing blood pressure, then you have to start factoring in far more than just diet, so it's irrelevant to focus on CICO.
CICO is the simplest metric to use to govern weight loss. Ideally you will reduce calories from highly processed junk foods and maximise calories from whole foods, but to normal people that don't want to study nutrition, counting calories, avoiding junk food and regular exercise is the best way to lose weight and maintain a healthy body composition.

>>16685816
>the calorie, a measure of increased temperature through igniting food, has no objective conclusible takeaways that lead to it being correlated or causal towards the mechanisms in the body that break down that food
And yet CICO works, and I personally have lost 30kg in half a year by cutting away 1000 calories by my daily intake.
You're fat because you have no disciplline you whale. Deal with reality instead of hiding from it.

>>16694855
Ok, bro, but basically, you're a spastic little /fit/ shit posting kneejerk reactions without understanding that, while 'CICO' technically holds true, differences in how the body processes different sources of calories can easily account for significant difference -- let's say 20% or so -- in real calorie availability in the body; that is, 1000 calories in sugar consumed independently will net the body more energy than 1000 calories of protein and fiber which the body must spend energy to break down.

>>16695016
>-- let's say 20% or so --
Is that the amount by which you round up or down your calories calculations? No wonder you can't lose weight, you fat fuck.

>>16695050
Keto increases energy expenditure by up to 200 calories daily.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7948201/

>>16695107
Or fatties lose water weight for the first time, or fatties lie about their food intake (which is a well-established phenomenon).

>>16694717
>How much you eat (calories in) determines how much mass you have
False conclusion.

>It's not debatable - it's irrelevant. If you want to lose weight, reduce your calories. If you want to gain weight, increase your calories.
Gross simplification.

Calories encompass all sorts of different substances. It isn't shocking to those with brains to understand why "calories in, calories out" is a gross simplification and thus a false conclusion.

It's as laughable as an ancient tribe that collectively and falsely concluded that performing some ritual results in angering the gods to the point of throwing bolts of lightning down. A broken clock is right twice a day.

>>16695136
Not water weight it was energy expenditure. And they were isocaloric.

>>16695241
>it was energy expenditure
Which was probably measured by comparing their reported food intake to their weight loss. And for all I know, rhe low carb group could have eaten less food because they got bored of their meme diet. Or the high carb diet could have eaten more than they reported.
After all, fatties are unreliable when they have to report their food intake.

>>16695136
or you didn't even read the study, or you're just retarded

>>16695287
You could just read the study instead of talking out of your butt.
"Trials were eligible if they met all of the following criteria: 1) compared the effects of lower- versus higher-carbohydrate diets regardless of absolute levels of dietary carbohydrate proportion, 2) controlled energy intake or body weight, 3) controlled dietary protein, 4) provided foods to participants to enhance treatment differentiation, and 5) utilized whole-room calorimetry (WRC) or doubly labeled water (DLW) to measure TEE. "

I thought the point of measuring Calories was that it was a general unit that applies to all food and all people. Obviously the human body is not a bomb calorimeter so each person will utilize a different amount of their consumed Calories in a marginally different way.

For example, let's say I eat 1,000 Calories of spicy beans. But I get such explosive diarrhea that the food does not get the chance to be fully digested. Maybe I only utilized 900 of the 1,000 ingested Calories. While CICO may not be absolute, it is a good estimation point that applies to all foods and all people.

Thanks for listening.

>>16695313
There's lots of other factors. For example, the calories you do intake may not help spare muscle mass, which could lead to more muscle loss vs fat loss during your calorie deficit. But you're right, calories are a very rough measurement and should be treated as such.

>>16695107
That study doesn't even look at keto.
This one does and finds no difference
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27385608/
This one finds a slight benefit to fat restriction compared to sugar restriction, but is also inconsequential
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26278052/

>>16695297
Different guy, but I pulled up the first study it reports to use and it's not a very well controlled trial
>The primary aim was to assess metabolic responses to acute dietary interventions in relation to free-living weight change
Free-living means they're not being monitored, they just send back data every few weeks and meanwhile have every opportunity to cheat and eat outside food

>>16695377
they either controlled for weight or for intake. obviously self report is not great in terms of accuracy but why should that be more true for a low carb diet than a high carb?
>>16695358
the study was a meta analysis of varying degrees of carb percent from nearly 30 trials. your 1 small scale short term trial is unreliable for reasons you would know if you read the study i posted.

>>16695358
"Lower-carbohydrate diets transiently reduce TEE, with a larger increase after ∼2.5 wk. These findings highlight the importance of longer trials to understand chronic macronutrient effects and suggest a mechanism whereby lower-carbohydrate diets may facilitate weight loss."

>>16695403
Yes, I read that, and I read further than you did apparently. "Lower-carbohydrate diets" aren't synonymous with ketogenic diets or ketosis, and they used free-living subjects for months-long trials that gave them little to no control over what happened after the patients left the lab, whereas the studies in the post you're replying to held people in a building where they were watched and made it impossible for them to eat anything but what they were given, making them more accurate studies when it comes to determining the strict effects of macronutrients on energy expenditure

>>16695423
even the study you posted showed greater expenditure on the ketogenic diet. the other study is too short to be meaningful.
"Compared with BD, the KD coincided with increased EEchamber (57 ± 13 kcal/d, P = 0.0004) and SEE (89 ± 14 kcal/d, P < 0.0001) and decreased RQ (−0.111 ± 0.003, P < 0.0001). EEDLW increased by 151 ± 63 kcal/d (P = 0.03)."

>>16685816
>oats
Horse detected.

>>16695583
Mairzy doats and dozy doats and liddle lamzy divey
A kiddley divey too, wouldn't you?

>>16695550
>Furthermore, the body weight and composition adjustments likely overestimated the EE changes during the KD because much of the weight loss was likely from water rather than loss of metabolically active tissues.
Which explains why
>Body fat loss slowed during the KD

>Despite rapid, substantial, and persistent reductions in daily insulin secretion and RQ after introducing the KD, we observed a slowing of body fat loss. Therefore, our data do not support the carbohydrate–insulin model predictions of physiologically relevant increases in EE or greater body fat loss in response to an isocaloric KD.
The other study is shorter but because of that, more precisely calculates and measures things.
But at that small of a scale, it's not worth paying much mind to in either case. A calorie is a calorie.

>>16695600
there was a difference in expenditure in your single, small study, and in the meta analysis of nearly 30 studies. A calorie is not a calorie. not sure why you are trying to die on the hill of a food industry statement of propaganda.

>>16695600
"Guyenet and Hall feature the trial by Hall et al. (7), aiming to demonstrate that the TEE increase on a low-carbohydrate diet wanes over time. However, this pilot study was nonrandomized and did not achieve weight stability. Participants had accrued a substantially greater negative energy balance and weighed less when they consumed the low-carbohydrate diet (which always came last). For this and other reasons, the effect estimate and time trend cannot be considered reliable; the actual difference may have been substantially larger than reported and consistent with our meta-analysis, as considered by Friedman and Appel (8)."
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/151/8/2497/6345253

This is an ongoing debate but the evidence seems to be accumulating against your position.

>>16695600
"Regarding TEE effect size, the 95% CIs for their estimate among trials >2 wk in duration [63 (24, 102) or 70 (20, 119) kcal/d] overlap with our estimate (111 [28 to 194] kcal/d), lending general support to a prediction of the carbohydrate–insulin model (11) that withstands these methodologic issues."

This researcher also contends that the Hall et al trial confirms the results from the meta analysis.

unrelated but having read a few studies am i right in concluding that fat tissue in your body, once gained, is permenant? as i understand it the body does not actually remove fat tissue during sustained calorie defecit, merely deplete the lipid stores and thereby shrink the cells. in addition, it also does not affect the connecting collagen at all. this combined with your body generating more fat cells with weight gain seems to me to imply that once you have become fat, your fat fuck body shape is more or less set in stone and you have no hope of ever not having a gut or love handles.

in addition to this, it seems as if the body attempts to keep you at a certain minimum level of fat, which you can only briefly dip under before your body starts using various mechanisms to refill its fat stores or adhere to a strict combination of diet and exercise. i draw this conclusion in particular from the hormonal effects of fat tissue on your body, and my own experience of having lost substantial amounts of weight on multiple occasions. there is always an uncontrollable rebound.

does anyone have anything to say on this, for or against?

>>16695688
You are correct, once you develop fat cells, they stay with you. iirc they develop much faster and easier as a child/teen, which is why it's super important for children to have healthy diets.

>>16695675
The difference was ~50 calories, which the authors even admit was likely an overestimate and disappeared over time. It's irrelevant to weight loss considerations.

>>16695720
50 calories a day over a few decades is the whole obesity epidemic explained. not sure that is inconsequential. and also see >>16695680
nonrandomized and did not achieve weight stability. Participants had accrued a substantially greater negative energy balance and weighed less when they consumed the low-carbohydrate diet (which always came last). For this and other reasons, the effect estimate and time trend cannot be considered reliable; the actual difference may have been substantially larger than reported and consistent with our meta-analysis, as considered by Friedman and Appel (8).

>>16695738
>50 calories a day over a few decades
The observation didn't even last a few weeks and was primarily water weight

>>16695738
>the whole obesity epidemic explained
Did it need explaining? I know you guys are discussing the accuracy of calorie estimates, but they're still within ~10% and people are just eating more.

>>16695760
you're right, it was even more than 50 calories per day in the longer studies in >>16695107
"(135.4 kcal/d; 95% CI: 72.0, 198.7 kcal/d)"

>>16695794
See >>16695423

>>16695765
nobody disagrees that people are eating more but the question is why. the implication per the conventional wisdom is they eat more because of a moral failing; i.e. gluttony and or sloth. the insulin centric model is that they eat more because they are hungry due to the elevated insulin pre disposing people to store more fat. just my layman interpretation read below for the full argument made by people much smarter than me.
>https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqab270/6369073

>>16695797
see >>16695686

>>16695803
See what? Unless you can explain that the study didn't use free living, uncontrolled subjects, the point stands

>>16695809
the point is your metabolic ward study is consistent with the results from the free living studies.

>>16695819
*directionally consistent

>>16695809
and since you ignored it before here's the criticisms of the ward study
>"Guyenet and Hall feature the trial by Hall et al. (7), aiming to demonstrate that the TEE increase on a low-carbohydrate diet wanes over time. However, this pilot study was nonrandomized and did not achieve weight stability. Participants had accrued a substantially greater negative energy balance and weighed less when they consumed the low-carbohydrate diet (which always came last). For this and other reasons, the effect estimate and time trend cannot be considered reliable; the actual difference may have been substantially larger than reported and consistent with our meta-analysis, as considered by Friedman and Appel (8)."

>>16695738
>50 calories a day over a few decades is the whole obesity epidemic explained.
Kek, this is a joke right?

>>16695819
>Ludwig et al. (1) interpret their findings as evidence that low-carbohydrate diets initially result in reduced TEE that subsequently increases after a 2- to 3-week period of physiological adaptation. While this is consistent with the pooled analysis, it is notable that the only trial to measure TEE changes in both the early and late periods found that the small increase in TEE during the low-carbohydrate diet occurred within the first week and waned over time, consistent with increased energy costs of gluconeogenesis and the efficiency of hepatic ketogenesis

>>16695862
that sounds like a meta analysis of both the long and short term trials would be quite useful. shame we don't have something like that...

>>16695859
do the math before jumping to conclusions fren. you may be pleasantly surprised. even if a 12 year old this should be math.

>>16695879
*math you can do.

>>16686326
Isn’t eating 4 grams of protein the same eating 3.2 grams of protein because of the energy you burn converting it?
I may be mixing something up but I’m thinking your off base with your carb loving.

>>16685816
>I couldn't eat enough oats and honey to gain
wanna put that to the test, retard?
eat one bowl of oats with honey per hour -- 24 bowls per day -- where one bowl is 18 fl oz
do this for one week and post results

>>16694537
>the science of describing energy transformation has nothing to do with the system in the body that transforms energy
really making me think here

>>16695949
if you want it to be a real test you need to see if you can get people to eat equivalent amounts in calories of fat and protein. the overfeeding studies seen suggest you can't. protein and fat are satiating while carbohydrates (moreso refined carbs and sugars) drive hunger.

>>16695968
nah nigger the test is very simple
OP claims you can't gain weight from oats, no matter the quantity
so, simply eat large quantities of oats over a time period and monitor your weight

easier still: just kill youself

>>16695961
correct

>>16686563
>It has probiotics, healing properties,
you play too many video games
go outside and touch grass

If calories are real, then why are they listed in the nutrition facts but not in the ingredients?

test

>>16685816
Fatty cope.

>>16685816
just stop eating you fat fuck

>>16685816
its a good frame of reference rather than something to be taken exactly. there are a lot of hormonal and other interactions with specific macronutrients that you would help you achieve specific desired goals, but that takes significantly more explanation and investment than calories in/out, while still generally having a more marginal effect than calories in/out. for the layman, its about as ideal as you can expect as a measurement

>>16686274
>Eat 100 calories of oats, effective output to body/muscle/fat deposits is some amount less than 100
protein would end up less than oats, too. Idk what your boner for oats is. oats are also more insulinogenic than protein. none of this is to say that calories are not a useful approximation that has its uses. there are too many factors to measure the "final output." your exercise level, your age, your hormones, your sleep cycle, timing, what you've eaten prior, etc all play into how calories and macronutrients are used/stored in the body. its not feasible at all. you use calories as a base measure, you can break it down further into macronutrients if you;re smart, you figure out how that is contributing to your goal, and you adjust based on observation because all those variable are different for practically everyone. but the calorie count, even better adjusted for macronutrient composition, are practically perfect to point you to your first frame of reference for whatever diet and goals you have, to be fine-tuned from there

>>16695922
that, and your body will prioritize other macronutrients to burn as fuel over protein, since protein is better used to repair tissues. its a complicated mess and OP is a retard for thinking otherwise while shit-talking a perfectly workable system in place

>>16686384
What a fucking retard

>>16685816
>Single Anon is smarter than the entire global medical industry, made a discovery not a single one, not even those from opposing fields/countries who have every reason to dispute their opponents have ever made
>Does not provide facts and references
>Uses fat people skipping a meal as his example

When using fat people as an example in terms of diet, don't count how many meals they eat, or any they skip, count how big the meals they actually eat are, and what they eat in those meals. There are plenty of fat people who eat a healthy breakfast of oats, but they have about five cups of oat in some yoghurt with about three cups of berries because fruit is healthy, and since they had a good breakfast they can cheat a little at lunch and order the BIG caesar salad, because salad is healthy. Hell make it two caesars, because they jogged today!

Your entire argument is "I eat TONS" how much is tons by the way "of honey and oats and I'm not gaining weight" and again, you're probably not eating as much as you think you are. If you're eating till you feel completely full, that's still a shit measurement for "tons" because even if you feel like you've eaten a disgustingly large amount of food, there's someone who'll eat what you did and still want more.

>>16694640
always wondered why humans still need to drink water when burning calories produces water.

>>16697803
We need it to stop the cell soup getting too thick with oats.

Just play chess.

>>16699448
Or eat low carb

>>16699448
>CAN
>Is probably roughly measured in one elite sweatingly nervous person hopped up on coffee or something
>The average is most likely much MUCH lower
Such disingenuous take, from CHESS.COM no less.

>>16699448
Play karuta!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE9y3aZqIQM

>>16699448
That's a fat fucking lie, though.
The brain does burn quite a lot of energy in general but "doing a lot of thinking" does not increase the consumption by any significant amount.

>>16699996
It's exaggerated, but the only studies I can find test people with utterly mindless tasks like naming colours and still find an increase in energy consumption.